Are you Positive?

In my previous two entries I employed the postmodern “hermeneutic of suspicion,” applying it to the space program and medical community. Next time I’ll apply it to the evangelical theological community… just for fun.

Do you remember the title of this Hitchcock film?

Both of the aforementioned communities have a starting point, they assume that their presuppositions and foundations are “right,” by which they justify their pursuits and expenditures. 

As a matter of fact, during the last half of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th, the scientific community was dubbed as the final arbiter of Truth. How did that happen?

It all began not with, "I doubt, therefore I might be," but with cogito ergo sum — "I think therefore I am"

Modernist ideology declared REASON as authoritative because REVELATION as interpreted by the Roman Church had become lethal (see entries 13, 23 Jan & 10 May '06). Modernism's promise was: Science working through Institutions will create Utopia on earth for the autonomous Individual. 

If it was all for the autonomous individual why are the men bowed, subservient to the goddess of Progress?

August Comte (1798-1857) affirmed that the “scientific or positivist spirit will, by an invincible law of progress of the human spirit, replace theological beliefs or metaphysical explanations.” 1 

There was therefore no longer place in the public sphere for subjective opinions. Positivists believed that human knowledge “could be totally objective and, therefore, true in the absolute sense” 2 ; it was without bias. 

Positivism presupposed that “humans always act rationally.” 3 

Or as Descartes put it, “it suffices to judge well, in order to do well.” 4

August Comte, the French father of sociology, sought to move toward a “religion of Humanity.”

Modernist Man had vehemently and violently rejected the Roman Church’s interpretation of reality and placed His faith in His own Reason to discover Truth. Human Reason co-opted the Catholic Church’s claim to infallibility. 

Humans will act logically, preached the new Man. 

Progress is inherently good, taught the new priests — university professors. 

The real world is material, announced the new apostles — the scientists.

Thus, there was great optimism at end of the 19th century. The  20th century was to be a century of peace, the crown of all centuries where technology, transportation, medicine, progressive understanding of history would end human strife. 

“There will be war no more!” was the mantra. Humans would no longer exploit other humans. The 20th would be the century of elevated human reason. Reason, not revelation, would finally rule. And it did. 

Friedrich Nietzsche’s Zarathustra, declared, “God is dead.” Nietzsche’s superMan was a new kind of creator. Zarathustra himself warned, “but all creators are harsh.” 6

This is the Superman that was expected at the beginning of the 20th century 

This is the superman, in line with Nietzsche, that actually showed up

The reign of Human Reason caused the greatest collective bloodbath in the history of mankind. The Modernist superMen — Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Tito — led by Human Reason (these men clearly rejected religion and God) wielded ideology, technology, transportation, medicine, and a progressive understanding of history to create highly efficient means of killing other men before they could die from the diseases that modern medicine could not heal.

Donald Shriver points out that from the 16^th to the 19^th centuries, 34 million people were killed in wars. Yet in just one century — the 20^th “Century of Peace” — 107,800 million people were killed in warfare. 7 

Alexandre Solzhenitsyn summarized: “The most optimistic century ended as the most cannibalistic.”

Modernist Secular Man's evil geometrically surpassed that of religious men

CONCLUSION 

Believers need to acknowledge crimes done in the name of Christ. People really were tortured and killed in the name of Christ. Jesus predicted that this would be done by men who “neither knew the Father nor me” (John 16:2-3). 

But the Secular & Scientific Institutions that promulgated Humanism & Modernism are also guilty of the same crimes (on a greater scale) as the Church that they were allegedly rescuing people from: unjustly claiming to be the spokesmen for Truth, perpetuating itself at other’s expense, guilty of atrocities such as experiments done on human beings, torture, rape and mass murder. 

QUESTIONS

If the Roman Church and guilty believers should acknowledge their crimes, should not Modernist Man do the same? 

If Man always acts logically and people today reject the Church because of the Crusades and the Inquisitions, should they not also reject Science, technology, Secularism and Humanism  which are culpable in the extreme? 

In light of these things, how is Modernist Secular Man more trustworthy than pre-Modern Religious man?

Enter Lyotard, Derrida, Foucault… the postmodernists.

1 translated from «La pratique de la Philosophie de A à Z», 355.

2 Paul Hiebert, Anthropological Reflections on Missiological Issues, 98.

3 Earl Babbie, The Practice of Social Research, 49. 

4 René Descartes, Discours de la méthode, 50.

5 Paul Hiebert, Missiological Implications of Epistemological Shifts, 3, 11.

6 Friedrich Nietzsche, Ainsi parlait Zarathoustra, 116-117.

7 Donald W. Shriver, Jr. An Ethic for Enemies: Forgiveness in Politics, 65.

Medical hubris

In my last entry I shared that my postmodern moment with the space program evinces the possibility that some sectors of today's Scientific Community are guilty of consuming massive amounts of money in pursuit their own self-perpetuating goals. 

A second postmodern moment—personal disillusionment with Scientific Institutions—came this past summer when I was subjected to some megalomaniacal claims of the Medical Community. 

My wife participated in a two-day mitochondrial conference where hundreds of researchers, doctors, practitioners and patients stricken with mitochondrial conditions gathered in Washington D.C. I accompanied her to the evening banquet where the keynote speaker presented the research that was being done. Research that unquestionably has been helpful to a number of people. 

Allow me to preface my upcoming critical observations:

• I highly value research. 
• I do not expect miracles from the medical community. 
• I have friends who are medical doctors who truly care about people and do their best to help them. 
• The medical community has helped millions (billions?) of people and I am thankful for medical practitioners and advancements. 

Did you see him in the Olympics?

It was the boastful claims of the Medical Institution at this particular gathering, flagrantly uttered into the ears of suffering people (and primary caregivers), that raised my ire. 

Some researchers and doctors in the room obviously viewed themselves as an elite group of people, above those in other disciplines. (E.g. I hold a doctorate in missiology which is interdisciplinary—sociology, theology and history—considered to be "tainted" by its metaphysical component. The "social" disciplines are deemed “soft,” not “hard” sciences, thus considered to be less rigorous and reliable.) 

Note that "religion" is not even considered

The evening began with an opening speech by the president of a patient’s association. She confessed to having traveled the world over, seeking help from everything from the Scientific/Medical Community to shamans and filipino healers, to the denigrating amusement of some of the doctors in the room who were, by the way, unable to help her. 

This movingly sad testimony was followed by the president of the mitochondrial research group. His triumphal discourse implied confidence that given enough time and money, the Medical Community would one day cure mankind’s ills. He shared about breakthroughs that have helped a small number of people at the cost of $10s of millions.

I was reminded of the woman “who had had a hemorrhage for twelve years. She had spent everything she had on doctors and still could find no cure” (Luke 8:43). Despairing patients, parents of afflicted children and primary caregivers have no other this-world-recourse but to put their faith in scientific "miracles." 

I believe that God heals people today. Yet mine is not a rejection of medicine nor a denigration of medical doctors. I pray concomitantly for healing, for my doctor, and that medication will be effective. I would simply like to see humility in a Medical Community that seeks the good of the patient. It would be refreshing to hear specialists admit that, while they can alleviate some suffering, they cannot and will not be able to cure all of humankind’s maladies. 

The Servant who healed the afflicted woman 

The September 13, 2012 editions of Le Monde (a French NY Times) cited a report by the former dean of the Paris College of Medicine that a cholesterol medication taken by about 4million French people, at the cost to the health system of 2billion euros per year, is “completely useless.”* Concerning other medications, the report concludes that “5% are potentially very dangerous.” 

The Wall Street Journal cited a report by an 18-member panel of doctors, business people and public officials about the U.S. health-care system. While acknowledging the good that the medical community has done, the study group claims that  $750billion per year is wasted in “unneeded care, byzantine paperwork, fraud and other waste.”**

Curtailing some of this waste might help the U.S. economy regardless of whom one votes for in the upcoming election. But evidently this sector is either unable or unwilling to render itself efficient. Or possibly it believes itself deserving of $750billion worth of perks per year in light of the good that does for people. 

In the pre-modern era the Roman Church was accused of financial abuse, exploiting people by various means in order to pad its own pockets and top off its coffers. Clergy lived in opulence while the commoners footed the bill. Guilty as charged. 

“Yes but,” one might retort, “while the Scientific and Medical Institutions may be perpetuating their own existence and consuming vast amounts of money in doing so, they nonetheless do some good.” 

“Granted,” I concede, “but ‘religion’ and the ‘Church’ are often portrayed as categorically nefarious. This is patently untrue. History demonstrates, for example, that the monastic movement saved Western civilization from barbarism. Much earthly good has also come from Christianity." ***

The metaphysical is rightfully viewed as a matter of faith. But it is disparaged, not necessarily by individual scientists and doctors but by the Scientific Institution, relegated to the private sphere, sequestered with other “mythologies.” Yet, is unquestioning confidence in the Scientific Institution’s benevolence and ability to eventually heal all of man’s hurts warranted? Is not their trust in their own abilities, in the face of historic facts, a matter of "faith"? 

The RMS Titanic

“After all,” one might argue, “while it is unfortunate that some in the Medical Community may be profiting financially from its superior status, at least the Scientific Institution hasn’t tortured and killed people like the Church did during the Crusades and the Inquisitions.” 

"Oh really?!"

Next up: Positivism and the rise and fall of the 20th century superMan.

* Le Monde.fr, “Selon MM. Debré et Even, un médicament sur deux ne sert à rien,” 13.09.2012

** Wall Street Journal, “Report Cites $750 Billion in Annual Health-Care Waste,” September 6, 2012

*** See for example, How The Irish Saved Civilization by Thomas Cahill.